Indian, Chinese Posturing Deepens Nepal’s Federalization Troubles

Many domestic factors are at play in the anticipated process of state restructuring in Nepal, ranging from an increasingly polarized populace for and against ethnicity-based federalization to the consistent ineptitude of political leaders failing to lead from the front to seek a meeting point between conflicting interests. But the increasingly prominent posturing of Nepal’s two giant neighbors on these issues threatens to sabotage the whole process and push Nepal further into chaos.

“When the uneasy relationship between two Asian giants degenerates into a confrontation, Nepal will find it extremely difficult to balance its relations with them. In such a situation, weaknesses in Indo-Nepal relations would be open to exploitation by unfriendly elements.” This is how Col. R. Hariharan, a retired Indian Military Intelligence Specialist associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies, sums up the predicament of Nepal’s foreign policy amid the changing nature of relationship between the two rising Asian powers.

Writing on the Journal of Defense Studies under the heading of “China’s Expanding Footprint in Nepal: Threats to India”, Dr. Satish Kumar, Assistant Professor at one Indian university writes: “The strengthening of bilateral ties between the two countries is quite natural. But China’s overstepping in Nepal has a real and concrete strategic impact on India’s Himalayan security.”

These two statements reflect the increasing realization on the Indian side of the intensifying Asian tug-of-war that the latest interactions between Nepal and China are something qualitatively different from those in the past when India used to take its influence in Nepal for granted. From the geopolitical view, China’s increasing influence in Nepal can be viewed as a part of its increasing assertiveness in general and India’s attempts at retaining the centuries long influence in the tiny northern neighbor is also understandable. These are indeed the recurrent themes of the interactions that have been taking place between Nepal and either of the two neighbors over past many years.

To date, as can be explained by discrepancy in terms of economic, political, and military power, politicians and diplomats from Kathmandu have contributed little towards shaping the relationship of Nepal with either of the two neighbors. Rather, the motives and actions of either New Delhi or Beijing have shaped and reshaped those relationships. This makes even a small overture by either of those capitals to Kathmandu very significant as the other capital is likely to view the same with alarm and suspicion.

As a result, it has been long felt in Nepal that the politicians in Kathmandu have miserably failed in preserving the core national interests vis-a-vis the neighbors by either deferring to their interest unnecessarily (usually when they are at power) or antagonizing them through hollow rhetoric towards mean political gains (obviously when they are in streets). This phenomenon is much more prominent in relation to India, which does not hesitate being seen taking sides in confrontations between various actors and institutions in Nepal; unlike China, which plays more subtle and covert role. In this backdrop, the preferential treatment of different political parties and leaders by either of the two neighbors is not uncommon.

Over past many months, the conflicting positions of the two neighbors in the question of thorniest issue in Nepal’s transition have increasingly come to the fore: the yet undecided process of state restructuring that is supposed to follow the implementation of the new constitution. While India visibly prefers the ethnicity-based federalization of the state with as much autonomy to the southern plains of Terai (that is increasingly identified as ‘Madhesh’ as more preferred political unit) as possible, same possibility has become a matter of ominous concern for China which prefers stabilization of Nepal with as little change in status quo as possible. The matters went nearly out of hand of Kathmandu politicians drawing strong protest from people about two months back when one Indian diplomat reportedly prompted the Nepali politicians in the southern plains of Madhesh to bring a “storm of protest” for identity of the plains.

The situation was problematic enough even when the Constituent Assembly (CA) was in existence until two months ago, with the assembly fumbling to get the job of writing the constitution done on time amid the failure of political forces to agree on issues crucial to state restructuring. After the tragic collapse of that institution with its failure, the uncertainty has increased and the problems seem to only multiply for everyone, from Nepali politicians to the governments and diplomats in the two neighbors.

In this context, some of the latest developments in Nepal need special mention. Mohan Baidya, the president of CPN-Maoist (that was formed after splitting the Unified CPN (Maoist), the largest party in erstwhile CA), recently completed his 10-day trip to China. On return, he was unequivocal on passing a message from Beijing that China was “against any foreign interference in Nepal in the name of federalism”. It could be clearly read in the statement that the Chinese side had tried to woo Baidya away from the stance of ethnicity-based federalization, something his party has remained mum about since its birth, even though most of the leaders had been strongly advocating the former before the split.

The wording and intention of the message from Beijing aside, Baidya’s engagement with China is sure to create discomfort in his former party, the UCPN (Maoist) which is still in power in Kathmandu amid many difficulties and confusion. At one front, the UCPN (Maoist) has been known for inconsistency in its foreign policy characterized by India-bashing while at the street and India-embracing once in power. Indeed, the current government led by Dr. Baburam Bhattarai in alliance with the Madhesh-based regional political parties is said to be one of the most pro-India governments in recent past, even though many analysts portray it as merely pragmatic government.

At another front, the Maoist party before split was the vociferous advocate of identity-based federalization of Nepal, mainly because that had been the slogan around which it had galvanized the support of masses from marginalized communities during its decade long ‘People’s War’; a position which now increasingly raises China’s discomfiture. In principle, the post-split UCPN (Maoist) still maintains that position, but in absence of any mechanism to move forward in the issue of state restructuring, they can afford to continue sending the ambiguous message on the issue for the time being even as the confusion around the whole political process intensifies.

In the meantime, K. P. Oli, another seasoned politician from another communist outfit CPN (UML), has reportedly pleaded to the highest authority in New Delhi to hear the grievances of the opposition parties in Nepal, who bitterly criticize the Maoists for clinging to power after collapse of the CA instead of seeking the alternative of ‘national unity government’. The fact that Oli even presented himself as the prospective PM of Nepal in a foreign capital tells a lot about the role New Delhi plays in shaping the outcomes of power tussle in Kathmandu.

Ironically, while the Bhattarai led government in Kathmandu is believed to be enduring because its stances on crucial issues are more pro-Indian than those of past governments, Oli has tried to precisely outsmart the former on the same front by convincing the Indian establishment. Indeed, during the tenure of Madhav Nepal as PM in the recent past, the alienation of the Maoists by an alliance of almost all non-Maoist forces with blessings from India had led to rude India-bashing by the former.

But now some deep paradoxes have developed in Nepal’s political arena surrounding the issue of state restructuring. First, with vocal opposition of the identity-based federalization, the erstwhile center-right forces like CPN (UML) and Nepali Congress (for whom India’s blessing was ‘usual’ and ‘natural’ as opposed to the leftist Maoists who apparently favored closer ties with China) have pushed themselves into increasingly awkward position with India. While it is yet to be seen what policies the UCPN (M) adopts after ouster from power some day in future, their natural course seems to be more convergent with the one India would wish for them to follow. This is sure to prompt Beijing to distance itself from their once-trusted party, something the newly formed CPN-M wishes very badly.

Coming to domestic considerations, the calculus of vote politics is such that the issue of federalization of the country can no way be sidelined and stances of political parties on this particular issue are going to matter more than anything else in the upcoming polls, savagely polarized by the intense and often violent debate over many months before the fateful dissolution of the CA. Political parties advocating the ethnicity-based federalization of the country are likely to garner votes of people from ethnic groups that felt marginalized in the past, while those against that process are sure to be favored by high-caste people from the hills who have been dominating the state machinery till now.

Thus the issue of federalization, while becoming that of prime concern for the neighbors, has come to be vital for near as well as remote future of the political forces in the country.

And exactly for the same reason, the whole debate surrounding state restructuring in Nepal has been sabotaged and degenerated into the vicious tug-of-war between and among the vested interests. The verbal duels among politicians to appease a particular section of population apart, the real and constructive debate to seek the optimum mechanism to address the grievance of the people is altogether missing. While extremist views for and against the ethnicity-based federalization spread among the populace like wild fire further polarizing the people, political parties are as busy wrangling for the chair of PM in Kathmandu as ever.

It is not hard to follow the developments in Kathmandu and see whether Beijing’s interests get upper hand or those of New Delhi do, but the tussle makes the negotiated settlement of divisive issue of state restructuring in Nepal increasingly untenable.

Not that either Beijing or New Delhi is to be blamed for the misfortune; it is natural for them to advance their own interests. It is the myopia and ineptitude of the leadership in Kathmandu that fails to reach the crux of the problem Nepal faces. Rather than travelling to Delhi or Beijing for blessings, they should be in dialogue among themselves and with the masses to convince them that a compromise means as much losing something as gaining something and negotiated settlement is the only way to better future as opposed to the polarization along extremist lines.

Nepal is obviously vulnerable to the tectonic shifts going on in world politics, and changing dynamics of the Sino-Indian relationship is going to impact the future of this small country. But so long as the politicians in Kathmandu keep seeking the blessings of one neighbor or the other to outpace their rivals as a more convenient alternative to painstaking negotiations and compromises at home, Nepal is going to look more like a battlefield of increasingly acrimonious regional powers rather than a sovereign and independent nation.

Add to that the chaos resulting from the leaders following the whims of crowds rather than judiciously leading them in issues as sensitive and divisive as state restructuring that makes a perfect recipe for a disaster.

Yet all hope is not lost. Nepal’s best way forward is a comprehensive dialogue on all issues including state restructuring among the political powers and all other stakeholders, something that was amiss in the attempts to sort out those thorny issues last time around, followed by political mechanism acceptable to all. On federalization, a settlement may not entirely conform to the wishes of either India or China but they will be happy to live with a stable Nepal regardless of whether their interests are preserved or not in the particular process. In the long run, that is indeed in best interests of all the parties.

Related

About the Author

Jiwan Kshetry is a Kathmandu-based freelance writer dealing with wide range of social and political issues in Nepal and beyond, particularly South Asia. Corruption, violence and political instability have been his recurrent themes. His articles have been published in Asia Times Online, Third Report, and Nepali language dailies from Kathmandu. He regularly writes for his blog 'South Asia and Beyond', both in English and Nepali and can be followed in twitter @jkshetry. The author can also be mailed for feedback at [email protected]

The rapid and prolific spread of Communism, particularly Maoist communism in Nepal is of great worry due to its radical predilections. Unfortunately, Nepal lacks a sufficiently vocal right-wing political identity to combat or at least check the left-wing political machination of Communists. It is curious and a little ironic that the country with the largest concentration of Hindu’s has not formed a political identity around right-wing Hindu ideologies as they propound in India.

Rani

It wasn’t a “rapid and prolific spread of Communism” as Raj asserts. Communists helped overthrow the fascist (extreme right wing) Rana regime in the 1950-51 that brutally oppressed the good people of Nepal for a century. They also finally overthrew the Shah dynasty (dictator kings) in 2006. In fact, the upper class rulers are extreme right wing and have ruled for hundreds of years, bankrupting. These guys are crooks but foreign diplomats and aid officials pander to them, perhaps not realizing they are right wing as they cleverly disguise themselves in order to get support, mostly financial. The extreme right wing has ruined Nepal. The honest people of Nepal finally stood up for their rights!

Subhas Lamichhane

S.D Muni’s recent assertion speaks volumes about the UCPN(M)’s India tilt. Now, it doesn’t need a genius to infer that all those anti-india activities carried out by them during and after the ‘people’s war’ were mere hypocrisy. That BRB who was once most vocal in demanding the abrogation of 1950 treaty is now seen as an Indian stooge. What more irony can there be???

Rani

Demanding the re-writing of the 1950 treaty is not ‘anti-India’ is is pro-Nepal and justly so, as it was lopsided heavily in favor of India. Bhattarai has a duty as prime minister to do what is best for Nepal. A good relationship with its closest neighbor is wise, but obviously doesn’t mean he is a ‘stooge’. The Maoists won concessions from the war (which the other parties are not honoring). Bhattari has also made compromises as any leader must do in order to lead fairly, rather than divide further.

Dirgha Raj Prasai

In Nepal, there are two giant neighbors-China and India. From the Mao’s period, there is no tension by China. But, due to the notorious activities from Indian Govt. leaders and diplomats, Nepal is suffering. Cordial people to people level relations between Nepal and India has existed since ancient times. We have to keep friendly relations with India due to our similar cultural and religious traditions. But sadly Indian congress, ever since coming to power has been striving to destabilize Nepal. India, through its intelligence agency ‘RAW’, has been found continuously involved in destabilizing our national identities- royal institution, Hindu Kingdom and national language, which were developed along with the ideology of national unity, security and national identity. The permanent institution- ‘Nepalese monarchy’ can put unite the national instigation as it remained since ancient time. Monarchy is still a popular institution in Nepal. In between the two big neigh ours-China & India, the monarchy has been playing a balanced role. So, Nepalese monarchy is the most convincing identity of Nepal and its independence and its sovereignty. Indian diplomats of cunning disposition such as Shyam Sharan, K.V. Rajan, Rakesh Sood are adding fuel to the fire when Nepal is already tumbling down the slope of retrogression. Due to this, India is being criticized from all sectors. India is desirous of manipulating Nepal. With the increasing India’s what we may call a ‘naked intervention’ China has made its intention clear by emphasizing on its presence in Nepal. China is convinced that its security is protected if Nepal retains the royal institution. As the royal institution was abolished in 2006, China is now showing direct concern. India has put forward the destructive person as Baburam Bhattarai so that Nepal would turn to a failed state and India could capture it. But, India is falling into crisis as a result of its desire to use Maoists to capture Nepal. The anti nationalist and treacherous acts of Nepali Congress (NC), UML and Maoists, who have captured state power advocating democracy after 2006, are working to drown the nation. It is a matter of concern for these parties if they should regurgitate or digest Constituent Assembly (CA). The leaders of these parties have turned CA into a beggar’s bowl. They have expedited the process of disintegrating Nepal. They are anti-nationalists worthless people. The crime of murder, rape, theft, kidnapping, and mafia rule has crossed limits. The Nepalese people already bogged down by insecurity and fears are now injured by inflation and shortage. Rampant corruption and maladministration have crossed all limits and mannerism has lost its sense. The term of the Constituent Assembly ended at midnight of 27 May 2012, with failure to promulgate a constitution. This ended the relevance of Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai’s cabinet, the presidential apparatus and all elements formed under the interim constitution of 2006. The President and Prime Minister, without constitutional mandate, are legally debarred from exercising any constitutional right. The Constituent Assembly failed to promulgate the constitution within the stipulated time span of two years. Its term was repeatedly extended and the work of drafting the new constitution could still not be completed in four years time, climaxing with the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. With their failure to draft a new constitution, party leaders betrayed the nation and the people.

The interim constitution 2006 that was introduced for the management of the Constituent Assembly has no meaning after the dissolution of the latter. The interim constitution stands automatically dissolved as the new constitution was not drafted in time. This means that the 1990 constitution stands automatically revived with the King. The Nepalese people demanding the monarchy safeguard around Nepal’ King Come Save Nepal’. Then, the King Gyanendra will be brought from Nagarjun Jungles and reinstated as the King in Naryanhiti Royal Palace to end the crisis of Nepal. Thank you. Dirgha Raj Prasai Kathmandu

Pashupati N

I agree with the writer mostly. Nepal has to view two big nations as neighbors, Nepal cannot choose its neighbors but has to deal with them accordingly with the young Nepali generation in Mind. Frankly, I found it is quite interesting to observe the Nepali society. They cannot leave without the Bollywood songs or movies. If you pay a close attention when you ride a commercial ground transport mostly you hear the Bollywood music. Similarly you hear Hindi music in Dashain or a Nepali New year celebration in cities like Atlanta or a wedding in kathmandu. Frankly, it seems that Nepali people enjoy the Indian pop culture influence. On the other hand, when it comes to the Indian political Influence, the Nepali people apparently do not appreciate the New Delhi influence at all, at least from some parts of the country.

From my personal and observation the average Nepali are quite knowledgeable about the current situation of their country. I guess it is time to rethink about Friends or Neighbors!

I guess Bombay has a greater influence than New Delhi In Nepal. What do you think? Should I add Peking or Beijing too?

With China coming in the front, Nepal is now in difficult position of wooing both the neighbors. It is evident that their interest played in Nepal’s federalization efforts and eventually the constituent assembly failed for this single issue. Now Nepal is in very uncertain position about its political future and therefore, can’t think about long-term relationship not only with external and neighboring nations but also alliances are built and broken everyday in the international politics. Regarding Pashupati’s comments about cultural influence of Hollywood in Nepal, I refer to one of my article “Hate in public, love in Private” here: http://mediadiscourses.blogspot.com/2012/04/hate-in-public-love-in-private.html